I’m not as worked up over this one. Police aren’t law experts, they enforce violations based on what they know and what their training is - if a cop is told to pull over cars with a single busted tail light, that’s what he’s going to do. I mean, I wonder how many of the likely hundreds of folks who got written up for a busted tail light by this guy- or any other cop, for that matter - over the years ever looked up the law and fought the citation?
The only reason this becomes an issue is because the subsequent stop resulted in a more serious charge, which the defendants are trying to get out of by suppressing the evidence. The lawyer finds this actual provision and tires to leverage it in a suppression motion.
In the end, it has to come down to whether the police officer was acting reasonably. In this case, I’d have to say yes, unless there’s reason to suspect that this one cop happened to know this arcane bit of law better than 99.99% of the public. (Though I bet he, and the entire LEO profession in NC know it *now*.)
In that respect, the precedent is limited.
I disagree. Like everything else that comes with the ever expanding police state, they use tiny tears in the fabric to eventually rend the entire garment. The evidence should have been thrown out, for the same reason mentioned above. We are constantly told "ignorance of the law is no excuse". We don't have to have any criminal intent anymore. Yet, the state is allowed to make any excuse it deems necessary.
PFL
....”The only reason this becomes an issue is because the subsequent stop resulted in a more serious charge, which the defendants are trying to get out of by suppressing the evidence”....
Exactly...and generally most criminals know, with an attorney, they can manipulate the system enough to get away with crime, and often do.